Your dad's pictures will be gone in a few years: almost all common inkjet printing technologies are unstable and will fade and color shift rapidly. By contrast, a photographic platinum print will last as long as the paper it is printed on, a more common silver gelatin print will last at least a century if properly processed and stored, and even color prints should last 50+ years these days. You'll be lucky to get 5 years out of an inkjet print.
I've read of archival monochrome inkjet specialty inks and papers; I believe that the claim for prints made from these is for 15-20 years or so. Still doesn't even come close to a photographic wet print, though. Ever try to save a Polaroid print?:)
Doesn't this seem to imply a radical change to the architecture of the net? How far has the internet gotten away from its original ability to route around damage because there weren't any single locations that all packets had to travel through in order to get to their destinations? Isn't that what the FBI wants to do -- remove that ability to bypass damage so that all packets have to go through a few choice locations they regulate? And doesn't that imply that a very few terrorist acts against these traffic monitors could bring down the entire Internet?
Painting didn't disappear when photography was invented and film photography won't vanish just because digital imaging has appeared. Polaroid's problem was that they were a one-trick pony and didn't understand that digital was a better way of doing that one trick. They spent the billion dollars they got from Kodak for the instant film patent infringement lawsuit trying to design instant film products to help fight off the newer digital photography. They just didn't realize that their instant film market would die so quickly. Traditional film photography still has a lot of life to it, despite the inevitable contractions in products which are already occuring. But I believe that there are still enough of us out here who prefer film to keep it alive for a while, anyway. I don't view digital as the enemy, and most of the photographers I know don't, either. It's just another tool and some day the resolution and tonality will cheaply and conveniently rival the film equipment that I use. When it does, maybe I'll change over. Until then -- nothing matches a large format contact print. At least, nothing I can afford!
Not to mention that AOL never supported Windows NT because they couldn't figure out how to install their stupid AOL Adapter TCP shunt thing.
AOL 5 runs fine on NT 4.0. AOL doesn't support it, but it works. The last time I called their tech support (last Spring,) they said they'd have a specific NT client out by now. I haven't seen it and don't know that the world really needs it since AOL 5 works fine. I also bitched about the lack of a Linux client and the support person told me that they thought one was going to be released, but I haven't seen that, either. I figure it's either vaporware or someone changed their mind.
AOL's mail service is terrible but a lot of people don't want to change their e-mail addresses.
AOL is also one of the few IPs who allow multiple users per account (although only one can be signed on at a time.) With five people in my house (all of whom have e-mail accounts,) I'd pay $100 per month for separate unlimited access accounts for everyone. With AOL, it's just $23 per month. Pure economics. Another reason for AOL accounts is their great worldwide POP network. We keep several AOL accounts for traveling salespeople and executives because we know they can find a local POP to dial into from just about anywhere they happen to be: London, Munich, Mexico City, and almost anywhere in the US. It beats the heck out of paying ruinous hotel long distance charges, or the '800' AOL line surcharge. And really beats the crap out of talking a marketing manager through whatever weird TCP/IP setup a local provider in Back Woods, Ontario needs for a local ISP connection over the phone on Sunday evening.:)
Finally, you no longer need the AOL mail client to send/receive AOL e-mail, you can use practically any web browser. Just point to www.aol.com and sign in to your AOL account, then click the mail icon. Presto, you're there. It's all web-r-ized. Webbified. Whatever.
1. Place unopened IIS software in bank vault.
2. Close and lock vault door.
3. Eat paper on which vault lock combination is stored.
Oh, you actually wanted to use the software?
*sigh* I probably shouldn't rag on Microsoft: they needed to do this a long time ago. But in so many ways they've hoisted themselves by their own petard: by touting how easy their software is to use, by implication they've convinced businesses and technicians that they don't need much training on how to use it. Locking down IIS is one step: making sure that IIS admins know how to properly use it is another and I have yet to see any emphasis placed on education and training by Microsoft or any of its apologists.
Note: having one's connection refused by Slashdot when attempting to post a comment is just plain rude. On the other hand, the wonder isn't how well the bear dances, it's that the bear dances at all.:)
Employees across the country are feeling disenfranchised. They may have difficulty blaming themselves when they get laid off...
Now we hit the crux of the matter: (PHB) We're out of business. Sorry, no paycheck or severance, just go home. (Employee) Oh, God: I'm sorry, sir. I knew I should have bought more widgets, but the garage is already full and little Johnnie can't even get into his bedroom any more. *sob* (PHB) Damned whiner! Get out of my way, peasant! Whoever hired you is fired!
Yes, I would. I've been though a lot and I'm not terrified that easily. The concepts of freedom and liberty are only safe luxuries to those who have always had them; if you lose them for even a short time you come to a more mature understanding. You say, if I were there I'd be willing to forego a few freedoms for greater safety. I say, if you'd lost a few freedoms in the past you'd never agree to such an idiotic deal.
"I would gladly agree with giving up some of my freedom".
I won't, not now, not ever, not under any circumstances. I'm willing to fight to retain the liberties my (and your) ancestors fought and died for -- the same liberties which our country's enemies do not have, don't understand, and would be delighted to see us lose. Keep your eye on the ball, not the dancing chicken on the third base line.
Ben Franklin knew what he was talking about when he said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Some good comments and potentially useful courses of action have been posted here; that's good, it demonstrates the utility and power of open communication to clarify and help to solve difficult issues. Alas, that's a nice sentiment completely lost on the US Congress. I don't think anyone yet realizes the scope of this draft legislation. Let me point out some of the ramifications which have occurred to me.
1. It effectively outlaws open source operating systems and some applications. Look at it this way: the DMCA says that the *potential* for copyright evasion is against the law. This new idea does the same only in broader scope. It won't matter whether anyone actually writes code that allows Linux users to evade digital security: the mere potential that something along those lines could be written will be sufficient. Ditto for any application that interacts with media streams covered by this new, Draconian copyright 'protection'.
2. The DMCA to some extent and this new proposal to a larger extent means business: boys and girls, let's get one thing straight. Breaking these laws will NOT mean 30 days in the county jail and a fine of a month's wages. These crimes are defined as felonies, which means serious time in the big house and a fine big enough to ensure that the perpetrator never owns a new car or their own home ever again, short of winning a lottery. Also, as a convicted felon there are other, additional penalties which apply after the time has been served. Examples will be made, big time. Trembling in your boots yet?
3. This new law will be of concern to... (calculating) precisely 0.15% of the population, tops. My neighbors are not going to write their congressman; hell, most of them don't even write their mothers. They aren't going to picket, donate, or anything else. They don't care: they will still be able to rent the latest Hollywood blockbuster any time they want to. There just isn't going to be any 'popular groundswell' of support in opposition to this law. Heck, half the time I can't get my boss to agree to make a decision, let alone do it now. How are your powers of persuasion? If you ever wondered how Hitler could have come into power in a democratic pre-WWII Germany, just watch the news. It happened like this. Want an example? One proposal here on Slashdot suggested that we all boycot Disney products. A fine idea, if I weren't already boycotting them for past misdeeds. Nevertheless, let Mr. Eisner put out ONE 'cool' film, say about a plucky chap named Linus who single-handedly and completely innocently takes on a mighty corporation, gets the girl and saves the day for Freedom, Justice, and the American Way, and I will be quite happy to bet next week's paycheck that AT LEAST 90% of the people reading this will sneak at least one plush penguin doll into their collection within a week.
4. Write your congressmen all you like: your letter represents an investment of $0.33 and they just don't give a rat's ass comparing that to $20,000 campaign contributions. To get the attention of Congress you need millions. Do you have millions? I don't. Those that do are the same ones who dictated this BS to the congressmen in the first place. How many of you have written your congressmen related to the DMCA, or about Dmitry. I wrote to all three of mine and got two replies: one said 'thanks for the letter', one said 'sorry -- I don't get involved in specific criminal cases,' and the other one never bothered to even send an automated reply. Like most congressmen, they don't seriously consider themselves threatened to lose office at the next election, so they don't care whether I vote for them or not.
5. Picket, donate to the opposition, boycott Disney -- all good ideas, I suggest that we all do that. Despite the fact that techies are notoriously apolitical and that on a good day you can get maybe a dozen activists onto a picket or demonstration. Ladies and gentlemen, it isn't going to happen in this lifetime, most of us aren't that kind of people. (On the whole, we're 'way too nice.) On the other hand, it doesn't really have to: history records precious few revolutions which were actively or even passively supported by a majority of the population. Did I say 'revolution'? Sorry - I didn't mean it in the 'let's blow things up' sort of way. I meant it as a dramatic change in course, in the manner of people taking back their government. Peace is good. So is love. So is justice. The fact that I have precious few ideas how to do that without blowing things up is (or should be) irrelevant.
6. It would be nice to say, 'who's going to write the code to implement all this -- we should just refuse!' but that's a non-starter, let's not even go there.
7. I'd like to thing that my natural paranoia combined with having drank a liter and a half of Diet Pepsi is just making me all bummed out right now, but it will not surprise me in the least if this thing becomes law this year or next. The immediate effect will be to turn me into a criminal: I will NOT use a closed-source operating system such as Windows, especially if I am told that I must do so. I'm just too cranky for that and I've never been good at following orders (just ask my wife!) I expect that an encrypted underground will spring up and those who want the code will get it, most of everyone else will continue to contribute to Bill's retirement fund. Se la vie.
The real question in my mind is, what's next? I suspect that communications is going to be a hot target before too long: GPS transmitter/receivers in every cell phone, every vehical, etc. so that you can't possibly get lost (even if you should want to.) Money has to be on the list: cash really is untraceable and once computers and communications are regulated and 'secure' there's no real reason to keep it around. A few tech-savvie crooks will get very very rich by ripping transactions one way or another but in terms of a national economy it'll be cheaper than the existing cash economy, so they'll go for it. You and I will pay, repeatedly if possible, for every bit on information we consume and patent and copyrights going the way they are, it won't be long before everything is patented or copyrighted by someone: we'll end up having the fee for "Good morning, dear," taken out of our bank accounts automatically. Well, I guess it beats writing a check.
Gnu only knows what the Hugo voters were thinking. I'd just like to know what sh!t they were on 'cause that was some nasty stuff and I don't want anywhere near it...
<i>This is incorrect. You are referring to jury nullification, which has garnered jurors heavy contempt-of-court punishments in the past. From United States v. Avery, 717 F. 2d 1020 (6th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 104 S.Ct. 1683 (1984):</I>
<P>
I never said that it was safe: defying authority <b>always</b> risks consequences. Judges have enormous power (much more so than most people realize) and disagreeing with one is extremely hazardous. I never meant to imply otherwise. Nevertheless, jury nullification is an established legal right. <i>The District of Columbia Court of Appeals -- the second highest court in the United States -- explains that the jury has an "unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instruction on the law given by the trial judge..." (U.S. v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1139 (1972).)</i> (<A href="http://civilliberty.about.com/gi/dynamic/off site.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fi2i.org%2FSuptDocs%2Fju dic%2Ffija.htm>"Fully Informed Juries"</a> An excellent resource for researching the subject is at <A href="http://civilliberty.about.com/cs/jurynullifi cation/">here</a> and there are others, some biased in favor and others biased against the concept, easily found by most major search engines.
<P>
As Alexander Hamilton remarked, the basis of jury nullification is the depth of the jury's conviction. To my mind, they key term is "conviction", not in the sense of whether the defendent is guilty or not but rather do honest people have beliefs which they are willing to fight for. I don't want to either pound drums or stand on a soapbox: exercising the right of jury nullification is not a trivial undertaking and will almost certainly provoke intense (and possibly painful) response. My point is that if this is something that someone considers doing, they had better be damn sure that they are sacrificing themselves for something they believe in enough to sacrifice their own personal well-being for, because there will be a price and the price will be high. This isn't something to do because you're bored and it's re-run season on TV.
It's exclusively the job of the court to interpret the laws and also to determine if they are unconstitutional
Well, sort of. It is rare, although perfectly legal, for a jury to, for example, decide that the law under which a defendent is being tried is unjust and therefore refuse to convict. This principle upholds the ancient right of a democratic people to return to themselves the power and authority they may have temporarily granted to others. This right is fundamental to democracy and violation of this right directly leads to armed rebellion and insurrection, as governments always seem to forget sooner or later.
Things don't often go that far, primarily because citizens in our society (USA) are remarkably poorly educated about their rights and responsibilities as citizens. My wife would argue that since it is obviously in the best self-interest of government that the average citizen remain in ignorance of his/her rights, and since the government runs the schools, that this is deliberate. Me, I'm open to argument. We treasure our heritage of 'civil disobedience' as the primary means by which we express displeasure with our government and judiciary, but just as one medicine can't cure all illnesses, one means of protest should not be expected to right all injustices.
The (condensed) point is that citizens of a democracy are not bound, legally or morally, to blind acceptance of the dictates of those in power, regardless of how they came to be in power. The fundamental characteristic of a true democracy is the ability of those governed to correct injustices perpetrated on them by authority. Thomas Jefferson believed that the only way a free people could maintain their liberty was to occasionally reminded the government that the consent of the governed is subject to change. While no one is advocating violence (certainly I am not,) there are alternatives. Passive resistence can include refusal to cooperate (denying information or assistance to government, for example,) or the supplying of false information (yes, sir: I've got 15 kids here. No, you can't see them: they're all out right now.) There's also active resistance short of armed rebellion, including the refusal of a jury to convict someone of breaking an unjust law. All of this does require a significant minority of citizens willing to act together, which is where things most often break down, but that's another topic, I suppose. (It'll have to be: I've got a meeting in 5 minutes.)
What I really remember, though, is when we first got a floppy drive for the thing and thinking about how the 180 K that you could get on a SS/DD 5 1/4" diskette was so huge
Ah, you had the later double-density floppy drive. My first two TRS-80 drives were single side, single density and stored (as I recall) about 63k. If you had a single floppy system the OS took up about 50k of that, so you had maybe 11-12k for programs and data. You -needed- that second floppy drive!
The disk drives had a circle of black bars printed on the drive motor's hub. You were supposed to adjust the drive rotation speed by staring at the image under a flourescent light and turning an adjustment with a screwdriver; when the image of the bars stopped flickering, the drive was rotating at the correct speed. No, I am NOT making this up...
Buying floppies was an adventure in which you felt good to get 8-9 good floppies out of a box of 10 on a really good day. You had to choose between hard- or soft-sectored disks, single or double sided, and single or double density, and all combinations of the above, and just try finding a store which even knew what a floppy disk was, let alone carried the particular version you needed. Lord, I do NOT miss those days:)
After the Model 100/102/200 series came a group of "Laptop" computers similar to the market-leading Toshiba's of the day. The last of the line (or at least, the last one I kept track of,) was a little clamshell design with a 20 MB hard drive and Tandy's attempt at a DOS based GUI loaded over it (I forget what they called it -- it wasn't bad, actually.) I've still got a Model 100 and a Model 1400FD laptop down in the basement somewhere. They both still work. In earlier days the Model 100 was my doorbell controller: when you pressed the doorbell button the Model 100's screen lit up and presented a math problem. If you answered the problem correctly then the doorbell rang, if not you got to try again and the problem got harder. I have to keep the 1400FD laptop, though: out in the shop they have an old one running a labeling machine for plastic caps and mine is the backup in case that one ever fails. *sigh*
PC manufacturers will have the option to remove the Start menu entries and icons that provide end
users with access to Internet Explorer from previous versions of Windows, including Windows 98, Windows 2000 and Windows Me.
Didn't Microsoft executives swear in open court under oath that removing IE would break Windows? Is this perjury, or will every Windows user receive a patch to "fix" Windows with IE removed?:) Inquiring minds (with functional memories) want to know!
In my experience, there's no hell like that of a bureaucrat who's forced to confront a bad decision. Every company has them and you can't just make them go away. One of the reasons that younger (and technical) people get ignored in organizations is because they don't see any good reason to sugar-coat what they see as the truth. They don't have the patience (or tact) to air the dirty laundry quietly, out of public scrutiny. Learning how to deal with other people can be as necessary to getting something done as knowing the latest technical trivia, but university tends to ignore that part of the educational mission (possibly because uni profs are some of the most intensely bureaucratic individuals on the face of the planet.)
If I were you, I'd leave it alone. You can't win: the client won't appreciate knowing that they made the wrong choice and the hosting company won't enjoy having their flaws pointed out to a customer. You'll catch shit from both sides and could well get sued out of the deal.
Yeah, I know: it'd be great if you could just get them to fix their security holes. But in my opinion, you won't get that done and all you will end up with is a client who thinks you're a sore loser and a competitor who hates you. If the world were only rational...:)
I believe that Microsoft has concluded that they can't lose on this: every developer who peeks at Windows or Office code will have to live with the potential of being sued by a deep-pocketed litigator in the future if they should at any time work on a similar non-M$ product. At the same time, for every developer who considers this a bad idea and refuses access to M$ source, Chairman Bill can point to them and say, "See? People don't really want the source! Our research shows that 9 out of 10 developers don't need or aren't interested...." Kinda clever, in a Stalinist sort of way.:)
Its hard to believe that they aren't including the movie and TV industry in this suit. Maybe that'll happen after the made-for-tv-movie comes out and the checks clear.
Mr. Dvorak's talent has always been more in the line of entertainment than accuracy, I believe. This sounds more like flamebait than reportage. Give it a laugh and go on with your lives; nothing to see here, folks, move along...
My guess is that the lawyers who 'won' this case for the consumers did not accept rebate certificates as payment for their fees. I wonder how many millions they got while the rest of us get useless pieces of paper for more worthless products.
Slashdot Mirror
Your dad's pictures will be gone in a few years: almost all common inkjet printing technologies are unstable and will fade and color shift rapidly. By contrast, a photographic platinum print will last as long as the paper it is printed on, a more common silver gelatin print will last at least a century if properly processed and stored, and even color prints should last 50+ years these days. You'll be lucky to get 5 years out of an inkjet print.
:)
I've read of archival monochrome inkjet specialty inks and papers; I believe that the claim for prints made from these is for 15-20 years or so. Still doesn't even come close to a photographic wet print, though. Ever try to save a Polaroid print?
mjs
Weird. I wonder where 640 came from?
DOS. NASA's been under a bit of a budget crunch and...
:)
Doesn't this seem to imply a radical change to the architecture of the net? How far has the internet gotten away from its original ability to route around damage because there weren't any single locations that all packets had to travel through in order to get to their destinations? Isn't that what the FBI wants to do -- remove that ability to bypass damage so that all packets have to go through a few choice locations they regulate? And doesn't that imply that a very few terrorist acts against these traffic monitors could bring down the entire Internet?
Just curious...
Ben Franklin
We must outlaw all disruptive technology!
Painting didn't disappear when photography was invented and film photography won't vanish just because digital imaging has appeared. Polaroid's problem was that they were a one-trick pony and didn't understand that digital was a better way of doing that one trick. They spent the billion dollars they got from Kodak for the instant film patent infringement lawsuit trying to design instant film products to help fight off the newer digital photography. They just didn't realize that their instant film market would die so quickly. Traditional film photography still has a lot of life to it, despite the inevitable contractions in products which are already occuring. But I believe that there are still enough of us out here who prefer film to keep it alive for a while, anyway. I don't view digital as the enemy, and most of the photographers I know don't, either. It's just another tool and some day the resolution and tonality will cheaply and conveniently rival the film equipment that I use. When it does, maybe I'll change over. Until then -- nothing matches a large format contact print. At least, nothing I can afford!
Mike
1. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
2. See #1.
Not to mention that AOL never supported Windows NT because they couldn't figure out how to install their stupid AOL Adapter TCP shunt thing.
:)
AOL 5 runs fine on NT 4.0. AOL doesn't support it, but it works. The last time I called their tech support (last Spring,) they said they'd have a specific NT client out by now. I haven't seen it and don't know that the world really needs it since AOL 5 works fine. I also bitched about the lack of a Linux client and the support person told me that they thought one was going to be released, but I haven't seen that, either. I figure it's either vaporware or someone changed their mind.
AOL's mail service is terrible but a lot of people don't want to change their e-mail addresses.
AOL is also one of the few IPs who allow multiple users per account (although only one can be signed on at a time.) With five people in my house (all of whom have e-mail accounts,) I'd pay $100 per month for separate unlimited access accounts for everyone. With AOL, it's just $23 per month. Pure economics. Another reason for AOL accounts is their great worldwide POP network. We keep several AOL accounts for traveling salespeople and executives because we know they can find a local POP to dial into from just about anywhere they happen to be: London, Munich, Mexico City, and almost anywhere in the US. It beats the heck out of paying ruinous hotel long distance charges, or the '800' AOL line surcharge. And really beats the crap out of talking a marketing manager through whatever weird TCP/IP setup a local provider in Back Woods, Ontario needs for a local ISP connection over the phone on Sunday evening.
Finally, you no longer need the AOL mail client to send/receive AOL e-mail, you can use practically any web browser. Just point to www.aol.com and sign in to your AOL account, then click the mail icon. Presto, you're there. It's all web-r-ized. Webbified. Whatever.
1. Place unopened IIS software in bank vault.
:)
2. Close and lock vault door.
3. Eat paper on which vault lock combination is stored.
Oh, you actually wanted to use the software?
*sigh* I probably shouldn't rag on Microsoft: they needed to do this a long time ago. But in so many ways they've hoisted themselves by their own petard: by touting how easy their software is to use, by implication they've convinced businesses and technicians that they don't need much training on how to use it. Locking down IIS is one step: making sure that IIS admins know how to properly use it is another and I have yet to see any emphasis placed on education and training by Microsoft or any of its apologists.
Note: having one's connection refused by Slashdot when attempting to post a comment is just plain rude. On the other hand, the wonder isn't how well the bear dances, it's that the bear dances at all.
It was a JOKE. Loosen up!
Now we hit the crux of the matter: (PHB) We're out of business. Sorry, no paycheck or severance, just go home. (Employee) Oh, God: I'm sorry, sir. I knew I should have bought more widgets, but the garage is already full and little Johnnie can't even get into his bedroom any more. *sob* (PHB) Damned whiner! Get out of my way, peasant! Whoever hired you is fired!
Yes, I would. I've been though a lot and I'm not terrified that easily. The concepts of freedom and liberty are only safe luxuries to those who have always had them; if you lose them for even a short time you come to a more mature understanding. You say, if I were there I'd be willing to forego a few freedoms for greater safety. I say, if you'd lost a few freedoms in the past you'd never agree to such an idiotic deal.
"I would gladly agree with giving up some of my freedom".
I won't, not now, not ever, not under any circumstances. I'm willing to fight to retain the liberties my (and your) ancestors fought and died for -- the same liberties which our country's enemies do not have, don't understand, and would be delighted to see us lose. Keep your eye on the ball, not the dancing chicken on the third base line.
Ben Franklin knew what he was talking about when he said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Some good comments and potentially useful courses of action have been posted here; that's good, it demonstrates the utility and power of open communication to clarify and help to solve difficult issues. Alas, that's a nice sentiment completely lost on the US Congress. I don't think anyone yet realizes the scope of this draft legislation. Let me point out some of the ramifications which have occurred to me.
1. It effectively outlaws open source operating systems and some applications. Look at it this way: the DMCA says that the *potential* for copyright evasion is against the law. This new idea does the same only in broader scope. It won't matter whether anyone actually writes code that allows Linux users to evade digital security: the mere potential that something along those lines could be written will be sufficient. Ditto for any application that interacts with media streams covered by this new, Draconian copyright 'protection'.
2. The DMCA to some extent and this new proposal to a larger extent means business: boys and girls, let's get one thing straight. Breaking these laws will NOT mean 30 days in the county jail and a fine of a month's wages. These crimes are defined as felonies, which means serious time in the big house and a fine big enough to ensure that the perpetrator never owns a new car or their own home ever again, short of winning a lottery. Also, as a convicted felon there are other, additional penalties which apply after the time has been served. Examples will be made, big time. Trembling in your boots yet?
3. This new law will be of concern to... (calculating) precisely 0.15% of the population, tops. My neighbors are not going to write their congressman; hell, most of them don't even write their mothers. They aren't going to picket, donate, or anything else. They don't care: they will still be able to rent the latest Hollywood blockbuster any time they want to. There just isn't going to be any 'popular groundswell' of support in opposition to this law. Heck, half the time I can't get my boss to agree to make a decision, let alone do it now. How are your powers of persuasion? If you ever wondered how Hitler could have come into power in a democratic pre-WWII Germany, just watch the news. It happened like this. Want an example? One proposal here on Slashdot suggested that we all boycot Disney products. A fine idea, if I weren't already boycotting them for past misdeeds. Nevertheless, let Mr. Eisner put out ONE 'cool' film, say about a plucky chap named Linus who single-handedly and completely innocently takes on a mighty corporation, gets the girl and saves the day for Freedom, Justice, and the American Way, and I will be quite happy to bet next week's paycheck that AT LEAST 90% of the people reading this will sneak at least one plush penguin doll into their collection within a week.
4. Write your congressmen all you like: your letter represents an investment of $0.33 and they just don't give a rat's ass comparing that to $20,000 campaign contributions. To get the attention of Congress you need millions. Do you have millions? I don't. Those that do are the same ones who dictated this BS to the congressmen in the first place. How many of you have written your congressmen related to the DMCA, or about Dmitry. I wrote to all three of mine and got two replies: one said 'thanks for the letter', one said 'sorry -- I don't get involved in specific criminal cases,' and the other one never bothered to even send an automated reply. Like most congressmen, they don't seriously consider themselves threatened to lose office at the next election, so they don't care whether I vote for them or not.
5. Picket, donate to the opposition, boycott Disney -- all good ideas, I suggest that we all do that. Despite the fact that techies are notoriously apolitical and that on a good day you can get maybe a dozen activists onto a picket or demonstration. Ladies and gentlemen, it isn't going to happen in this lifetime, most of us aren't that kind of people. (On the whole, we're 'way too nice.) On the other hand, it doesn't really have to: history records precious few revolutions which were actively or even passively supported by a majority of the population. Did I say 'revolution'? Sorry - I didn't mean it in the 'let's blow things up' sort of way. I meant it as a dramatic change in course, in the manner of people taking back their government. Peace is good. So is love. So is justice. The fact that I have precious few ideas how to do that without blowing things up is (or should be) irrelevant.
6. It would be nice to say, 'who's going to write the code to implement all this -- we should just refuse!' but that's a non-starter, let's not even go there.
7. I'd like to thing that my natural paranoia combined with having drank a liter and a half of Diet Pepsi is just making me all bummed out right now, but it will not surprise me in the least if this thing becomes law this year or next. The immediate effect will be to turn me into a criminal: I will NOT use a closed-source operating system such as Windows, especially if I am told that I must do so. I'm just too cranky for that and I've never been good at following orders (just ask my wife!) I expect that an encrypted underground will spring up and those who want the code will get it, most of everyone else will continue to contribute to Bill's retirement fund. Se la vie.
The real question in my mind is, what's next? I suspect that communications is going to be a hot target before too long: GPS transmitter/receivers in every cell phone, every vehical, etc. so that you can't possibly get lost (even if you should want to.) Money has to be on the list: cash really is untraceable and once computers and communications are regulated and 'secure' there's no real reason to keep it around. A few tech-savvie crooks will get very very rich by ripping transactions one way or another but in terms of a national economy it'll be cheaper than the existing cash economy, so they'll go for it. You and I will pay, repeatedly if possible, for every bit on information we consume and patent and copyrights going the way they are, it won't be long before everything is patented or copyrighted by someone: we'll end up having the fee for "Good morning, dear," taken out of our bank accounts automatically. Well, I guess it beats writing a check.
Gnu only knows what the Hugo voters were thinking. I'd just like to know what sh!t they were on 'cause that was some nasty stuff and I don't want anywhere near it...
Close: the Heechee books were by Fred Pohl. Easy to get confused... :)
<i>This is incorrect. You are referring to jury nullification, which has garnered jurors heavy contempt-of-court punishments in the past. From United States v. Avery, 717 F. 2d 1020 (6th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 104 S.Ct. 1683 (1984):</I>f site.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fi2i.org%2FSuptDocs%2Fju dic%2Ffija.htm>"Fully Informed Juries"</a> An excellent resource for researching the subject is at <A href="http://civilliberty.about.com/cs/jurynullifi cation/">here</a> and there are others, some biased in favor and others biased against the concept, easily found by most major search engines.
<P>
I never said that it was safe: defying authority <b>always</b> risks consequences. Judges have enormous power (much more so than most people realize) and disagreeing with one is extremely hazardous. I never meant to imply otherwise. Nevertheless, jury nullification is an established legal right. <i>The District of Columbia Court of Appeals -- the second highest court in the United States -- explains that the jury has an "unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instruction on the law given by the trial judge..." (U.S. v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1139 (1972).)</i> (<A href="http://civilliberty.about.com/gi/dynamic/of
<P>
As Alexander Hamilton remarked, the basis of jury nullification is the depth of the jury's conviction. To my mind, they key term is "conviction", not in the sense of whether the defendent is guilty or not but rather do honest people have beliefs which they are willing to fight for. I don't want to either pound drums or stand on a soapbox: exercising the right of jury nullification is not a trivial undertaking and will almost certainly provoke intense (and possibly painful) response. My point is that if this is something that someone considers doing, they had better be damn sure that they are sacrificing themselves for something they believe in enough to sacrifice their own personal well-being for, because there will be a price and the price will be high. This isn't something to do because you're bored and it's re-run season on TV.
Well, sort of. It is rare, although perfectly legal, for a jury to, for example, decide that the law under which a defendent is being tried is unjust and therefore refuse to convict. This principle upholds the ancient right of a democratic people to return to themselves the power and authority they may have temporarily granted to others. This right is fundamental to democracy and violation of this right directly leads to armed rebellion and insurrection, as governments always seem to forget sooner or later.
Things don't often go that far, primarily because citizens in our society (USA) are remarkably poorly educated about their rights and responsibilities as citizens. My wife would argue that since it is obviously in the best self-interest of government that the average citizen remain in ignorance of his/her rights, and since the government runs the schools, that this is deliberate. Me, I'm open to argument. We treasure our heritage of 'civil disobedience' as the primary means by which we express displeasure with our government and judiciary, but just as one medicine can't cure all illnesses, one means of protest should not be expected to right all injustices.
The (condensed) point is that citizens of a democracy are not bound, legally or morally, to blind acceptance of the dictates of those in power, regardless of how they came to be in power. The fundamental characteristic of a true democracy is the ability of those governed to correct injustices perpetrated on them by authority. Thomas Jefferson believed that the only way a free people could maintain their liberty was to occasionally reminded the government that the consent of the governed is subject to change. While no one is advocating violence (certainly I am not,) there are alternatives. Passive resistence can include refusal to cooperate (denying information or assistance to government, for example,) or the supplying of false information (yes, sir: I've got 15 kids here. No, you can't see them: they're all out right now.) There's also active resistance short of armed rebellion, including the refusal of a jury to convict someone of breaking an unjust law. All of this does require a significant minority of citizens willing to act together, which is where things most often break down, but that's another topic, I suppose. (It'll have to be: I've got a meeting in 5 minutes.)
Ah, you had the later double-density floppy drive. My first two TRS-80 drives were single side, single density and stored (as I recall) about 63k. If you had a single floppy system the OS took up about 50k of that, so you had maybe 11-12k for programs and data. You -needed- that second floppy drive!
The disk drives had a circle of black bars printed on the drive motor's hub. You were supposed to adjust the drive rotation speed by staring at the image under a flourescent light and turning an adjustment with a screwdriver; when the image of the bars stopped flickering, the drive was rotating at the correct speed. No, I am NOT making this up...
Buying floppies was an adventure in which you felt good to get 8-9 good floppies out of a box of 10 on a really good day. You had to choose between hard- or soft-sectored disks, single or double sided, and single or double density, and all combinations of the above, and just try finding a store which even knew what a floppy disk was, let alone carried the particular version you needed. Lord, I do NOT miss those days :)
After the Model 100/102/200 series came a group of "Laptop" computers similar to the market-leading Toshiba's of the day. The last of the line (or at least, the last one I kept track of,) was a little clamshell design with a 20 MB hard drive and Tandy's attempt at a DOS based GUI loaded over it (I forget what they called it -- it wasn't bad, actually.) I've still got a Model 100 and a Model 1400FD laptop down in the basement somewhere. They both still work. In earlier days the Model 100 was my doorbell controller: when you pressed the doorbell button the Model 100's screen lit up and presented a math problem. If you answered the problem correctly then the doorbell rang, if not you got to try again and the problem got harder. I have to keep the 1400FD laptop, though: out in the shop they have an old one running a labeling machine for plastic caps and mine is the backup in case that one ever fails. *sigh*
Didn't Microsoft executives swear in open court under oath that removing IE would break Windows? Is this perjury, or will every Windows user receive a patch to "fix" Windows with IE removed? :) Inquiring minds (with functional memories) want to know!
In my experience, there's no hell like that of a bureaucrat who's forced to confront a bad decision. Every company has them and you can't just make them go away. One of the reasons that younger (and technical) people get ignored in organizations is because they don't see any good reason to sugar-coat what they see as the truth. They don't have the patience (or tact) to air the dirty laundry quietly, out of public scrutiny. Learning how to deal with other people can be as necessary to getting something done as knowing the latest technical trivia, but university tends to ignore that part of the educational mission (possibly because uni profs are some of the most intensely bureaucratic individuals on the face of the planet.)
If I were you, I'd leave it alone. You can't win: the client won't appreciate knowing that they made the wrong choice and the hosting company won't enjoy having their flaws pointed out to a customer. You'll catch shit from both sides and could well get sued out of the deal.
:)
Yeah, I know: it'd be great if you could just get them to fix their security holes. But in my opinion, you won't get that done and all you will end up with is a client who thinks you're a sore loser and a competitor who hates you. If the world were only rational...
I believe that Microsoft has concluded that they can't lose on this: every developer who peeks at Windows or Office code will have to live with the potential of being sued by a deep-pocketed litigator in the future if they should at any time work on a similar non-M$ product. At the same time, for every developer who considers this a bad idea and refuses access to M$ source, Chairman Bill can point to them and say, "See? People don't really want the source! Our research shows that 9 out of 10 developers don't need or aren't interested...." Kinda clever, in a Stalinist sort of way. :)
I want my flying car! They promised me flying cars!
(From one of my favorite IBM commercials. It seemed appropriate, in a stream of consciousness way.)
Its hard to believe that they aren't including the movie and TV industry in this suit. Maybe that'll happen after the made-for-tv-movie comes out and the checks clear.
Mr. Dvorak's talent has always been more in the line of entertainment than accuracy, I believe. This sounds more like flamebait than reportage. Give it a laugh and go on with your lives; nothing to see here, folks, move along...
My guess is that the lawyers who 'won' this case for the consumers did not accept rebate certificates as payment for their fees. I wonder how many millions they got while the rest of us get useless pieces of paper for more worthless products.